Who benefits more from the status quo in the Dialogue — Belgrade or Pristina?

If judged by the increasingly frequent meetings of the new EU Special Representative Peter Sørensen with the chief negotiators of Belgrade and Pristina, the Brussels dialogue appears to have “come back to life.” However, in practical terms, developments over the past months have largely moved in a negative direction—particularly regarding the position of the Serbian community in the north. According to interlocutors of Kosovo Online, the status quo has from the beginning worked more in Pristina’s favor. They also warn that a lack of U.S. engagement in the process, as well as Kosovo’s ongoing institutional crisis since the February elections, are exacerbating the issue.

Written by: Djordje Barovic

“What kind of dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia? Has there even been any meaningful dialogue in the last six months, the past year—or even in recent years? The EU-led process seems to have reached the limits of political will on both sides, where neither party appears genuinely interested in continuing, but merely simulating participation,” recently remarked U.S. Balkans expert Daniel Serwer.

Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt also stated that expectations for progress in the dialogue should be kept modest.

“I believe hopes for major breakthroughs should be limited,” he wrote on platform X, following Sørensen’s first trilateral meeting since replacing Miroslav Lajčák on 1 February.

“We agreed to continue discussions soon,” Sørensen said after the talks, announcing that another high-level meeting in Brussels was expected shortly.

For the Serbian community in Kosovo, the core concern remains that from such high-level vantage points—especially in Brussels—the daily challenges they face are barely visible.

“We submitted a new list of the latest escalatory actions. I spoke about arbitrary arrests and the political persecution of Serb representatives, particularly the Serbian List,” said Petar Petkovic, Head of the Serbian Government’s Office for Kosovo and Metohija, after meeting with Sørensen.

Just a week prior, Petkovic had submitted a list of 50 unilateral moves taken by Pristina in recent months.

He urged Sørensen to support immediate de-escalation and the formation of the Community of Serb-majority Municipalities (CSM).

Kosovo’s chief negotiator, Besnik Bislimi, said after the meeting that it was “still too early for concrete results,” but noted that Sørensen “more or less has a clear vision” for next steps.

“Next week he will send two of his close associates to Kosovo and Serbia to gather more information, and then by early July, a decision will be made on the next move,” Bislimi stated.

Return to the UN Framework

David Stokinger, an activist with the Austrian Peace Movement, believes that the Brussels dialogue is essentially exhausted and that it’s time for a reset—which, in his view, means returning negotiations to the United Nations.

“I believe the dialogue has reached its limits. It is now evident that no solution can be found along this path that would also be in Serbia’s interest. A solution contrary to Serbia’s interests is not a solution. Therefore, negotiations should return to the UN framework, as Resolution 1244 remains the legal foundation for any settlement,” Stokinger said.

He believes that the U.S. and EU moved the dialogue out of the UN knowing full well that Serbia would enjoy a stronger position there than under the Brussels format.

He stresses that the EU’s inefficiency has benefited Pristina alone.

“This status quo works primarily in Pristina’s favor. We can see that from the unilateral measures currently being implemented against Serbs, such as banning Serbian institutions, which negatively affects their daily lives. I think the EU, as it is today, is not interested in a resolution—because it is part of the problem,” he stated.

When asked why the EU and U.S. refrain from stronger reactions to Pristina’s unilateral actions—beyond harshly worded statements—Stokinger said the answer is “simple: Kosovo is their project.”

“The project of independent Kosovo is theirs. They’ve gone too far and now can’t turn back. Kosovo has been transformed into a massive military base used for geopolitical positioning in the Balkans. It’s now difficult for them to return to international legal norms,” he added.

He underscored the importance of respecting international law universally.

“International law must apply to all countries. Every state has the right to territorial integrity and inviolability of its borders. These principles must apply equally—to the U.S. and to every other global power,” Stokinger concluded.

“Wanting to Have It Both Ways”

Another major issue in the dialogue is the legitimacy of Pristina’s negotiating representatives, especially amid Kosovo’s ongoing failure to form a new parliament.

Following recent Brussels meetings, Kosovo’s Democratic League (LDK) claimed that Deputy Prime Minister in a caretaker capacity, Besnik Bislimi, lacks the legitimacy to represent Kosovo in this process.

“Mr. Bislimi’s attempt to impose obligations on Kosovo without a legitimate and democratic mandate is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and unlawful,” the party stated.

Political analyst Shkëlzen Maliqi also questioned the legitimacy of the Pristina delegation in comments to Kosovo Online, noting humorously that the Self-Determination Movement is acting out of a “mentality of wanting to have it both ways.”

“We don’t know if they’re legitimate or not. Under Kosovo’s laws, they’re not, because the entire government is in resignation, and most are also MPs. They should have either remained as a caretaker government or chosen to be MPs. They could’ve refused their mandates, but they didn’t. They want to have both power and privilege. That’s their mentality,” Maliqi said.

“The EU insists that a deal exists, that it holds international validity, and that both sides must fulfill their commitments. But after witnessing how both sides have behaved over the past four to five years, they are likely seeking new mechanisms. Due to broader geopolitical uncertainty, however, they are currently not pressing the matter strongly,” he added.

Maliqi argues that the situation on the ground is clearly unsustainable.

“It may seem to some as though things are resolved and that Serbia has accepted the status quo, leaving Serbs at the mercy of events. But this cannot continue. This is not a solution—the agreements must be implemented,” he stressed.

He added that the biggest uncertainty lies in the content of the so-called “European Plan,” particularly with regard to the creation of the CSM.

“It's likely that an agreement was reached in principle, but it still requires a review by the Constitutional Court. A decade ago, the Court found the first proposal to be acceptable in general but raised concerns about specific formulations. The same may happen again—each side will likely interpret parts differently. Still, the CSM must be formed so that relations can move forward,” Maliqi said.

He concluded that it is in everyone’s interest to resolve the issue quickly, as EU membership remains the shared strategic goal.

“The EU is not perfect, but it provides a framework in which many of the problems that worry those advocating for ethnic or nationalistic states can be addressed,” he said.

A Questionable “New Energy”

Given global turmoil and ongoing wars, the Kosovo issue has faded from the immediate focus of both the EU and U.S. administrations. This reality makes the emergence of “new momentum” in the dialogue increasingly unlikely.

Petar Donic, a researcher with the New Third Way think tank, stated:

“The situation in Kosovo is calm and relatively stable. Key indicators show that Kosovo is currently not a priority for either Brussels or Washington—especially not for the U.S., which is pulling back from European affairs and encouraging Europe to take more responsibility. Whether the talks will be revived, and whether Europe will bring new energy, remains highly uncertain.”

According to Donic, the dialogue is currently entangled in a negotiating process that has effectively stalled—first in anticipation of a new European administration, and now waiting on developments in Washington.

“Everyone was waiting to see the U.S. position—who the ambassadors would be, who the special envoys would be. But global hotspots lie elsewhere, and both Europe and America are focused on Ukraine. The U.S. is slowly pulling out and shifting its focus to the Indo-Pacific, expecting its European partners to take the lead on continental matters,” Donic said.

He emphasized that this situation benefits Pristina far more than Belgrade.

“Pristina is capitalizing on the status quo, while Belgrade would prefer to see a resolution—one way or another. But overall, a frozen conflict serves no one in the long term. It may look stable, but it can be reignited at any time. We’ve seen this happen in various contexts. The Kosovo issue remains relatively quiet for now amid the current geopolitical landscape,” he explained.

He concluded that the status quo allows Pristina to continue taking unilateral steps with little international scrutiny.

“With minimal international presence, the status quo suits Pristina, as it allows the current situation to be normalized over time. The longer it lasts, the stronger the precedent it sets. Belgrade, on the other hand, finds this situation far less favorable. But ultimately, neither side benefits from a lack of a final resolution,” Donic concluded.